july newsletter - society for human resource management
TRANSCRIPT
July Meeting
Wednesday, July 8th
Decatur Country
Club
$15.00
11:45 am —1:00 pm
Networking will begin at 11:15 a.m. and the program will start at
11:45 am.
If you RSVP that you are coming and then you don’t attend, you will still be charged
for the meal.
If you are unsure about attending and paying for a lunch,
you can always save-a spot for the salad
bar.
For reservations, contact
Patti Fowler at [email protected]
July 8, 2015
July Newsletter
Our Speaker:
Katherine Reeves
Topic:
“Best Practices and Ethical Considerations of Conducting Internal Employment Investigations”
Katherine is an associate in the Birmingham office where she focuses her practice on defending employers before federal and state courts against claims of discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, disability discrimination, Family and Medical Leave Act violations, ERISA violations, hostile work environment, retaliation, and related state law claims. Katherine also has extensive litigation experience with covenants not to compete, on both the defense and enforcement side.
In addition to litigation, Katherine routinely works with clients in drafting policies, procedures, severance agreements, and responses to investigations by administrative agencies. Katherine represents clients in a wide range of industries including: retail, manufacturing, restaurant, pharmaceutical, higher education, financial services/banking, and healthcare.
Finding out who did what, when they did it, how it happened, and if someone is at fault can often be tricky for employers. In this presentation, we identify the keys to effective workplace investigations, how to get your employees to open up to you, and how to avoid traps for the unwary. We will help you set investigation goals, develop a plan, teach you how to avoid costly mistakes, and discuss ethical considerations in consulting your legal team.
Thank you to Automation Temporary Service and Athens State College Center for Lifetime Learning for sponsoring our July meeting!
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a 5-4 margin that marriage is a
fundamental right that cannot be denied to same sex couples. The Court further held that states are
required to recognize same sex marriages that have been legally licensed and performed in another
State. Obergefell v. Hodges (June 26, 2015). Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy opined that “[n]o
union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest of ideals of love, fidelity, devotion,
sacrifice, and family.” Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined in the majority opinion
which held that the Constitution grants same sex couples the right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”
The Obergefell case arose from a consolidation of six lawsuits in four states (Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio,
and Tennessee) that all defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The plaintiffs
were fourteen same- sex couples and two men whose same sex spouses were deceased who claimed
that their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection had been violated by their states’ denial of
either their right to marry, or by the failure of their states to provide full recognition of their lawfully
performed marriage in another state. The Court acknowledged that states are generally free to vary the
types of benefits they grant to married couples; however, the Court recognized the expanding list of rights,
benefits, and responsibilities included taxation; inheritance and property rights; spousal privilege in the
law of evidence; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of
survivors; birth and death certificates; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules.
The Obergefell Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause provided a
“fundamental right to marry” that could no longer be denied simply because the partners are of the
same sex. The Court further held that the same sex marriage bans at issue burdened the liberty of same-
sex couples and denied them the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples. Accordingly, the Court
held that these state laws were invalid to the extent that they excluded same-sex couples from civil
marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.
Four separate dissents were filed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Chief Justice Roberts read the lead dissenting opinion chastising the majority for writing their own social
perspectives into the Constitution. He noted that, although the majority suggested that “religious
believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach’ their views of marriage,” they left out the word
“exercise” with respect to those beliefs, which could lead to religious institutions losing their tax- exempt
status if they discriminate against married, same- sex couples. Justice Roberts opined that “[t]here is little
doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court.” (Justice Thomas echoed this
concern in his own dissent, arguing that it was “all but inevitable” that churches will face demands to
“participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples,” without regard for their own
religious liberty.)
Justice Roberts concluded his dissent by inviting the “many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation –
who favor expanding same-sex marriage … to celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a
desired goal, Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the
availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
Justice Scalia wrote his own dissent, acknowledging that he also agreed with everything in Justice Roberts’
dissent. Noting that all the justices graduated from Harvard or Yale Law School, eight grew up on the coasts,
and that not one is an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, Justice Scalia wrote that “[t]o allow the policy
question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative
panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social
transformation without representation.” Justice Scalia further commented that if he had relied upon the
rationale adopted by the majority, he would “hide his head in a bag.”
Page 2 July Newsletter
Supreme Court Rules That States’ Same Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional
Courtesy of Lehr Middlebrooks & Vreeland, P.C.
Continued on page 4
How does this ruling affect employers? The main “take away” from the decision is, of course, that all
individuals who are eligible to be married may now enter into same- sex marriages in their own state of
residence or any other state, and such marriages must be recognized by all states. Employers should
review polices and benefit plans to ensure they are treating all married couples equally. This includes leave
polices, non-discrimination provisions, benefit plans, retirement benefits and benefits offered to employees’
spouses. Employee benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, FMLA leave may be impacted by
this ruling. Although neither the ACA, the IRS Tax Code, nor ERISA require a private employer to offer
group health insurance benefits to employees’ spouses, if an employer does provide health insurance and/
or other benefits to opposite-sex spouses of its employees, there is a legitimate argument for same-sex
spouses to claim the same right to eligibility. It is advisable that fully insured welfare benefit plans that do
provide benefits to opposite-sex spouses are reviewed and revised to include the same coverage for same-
sex spouses. Although the legal question arguably remains open as to whether self-insured medical plans
may continue to exclude same-sex spouses from coverage, such exclusion could lead to federal
discrimination claims, particularly since the EEOC has stated its position is that discrimination based on
sexual orientation can be sex discrimination under Title VII. Furthermore, at least one U.S. District Court has
already addressed the failure to offer the same benefits to same-sex spouses and found protection for same
-sex spouses where a company provided benefits to a male spouse of a female employee, but not to the
male spouse of a male employee. Hall v. BNSF Railway Company, (W.D. Wash., 2014). Benefits to
domestic partners are also in question, and employers are cautioned against making any abrupt changes.
The IRS issued guidance last year applying the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor (holding
that the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of marriage was unconstitutional and that the federal
government must recognize same-sex marriages that are recognized by states) to qualified retirement
plans. Interestingly, in Obergefell, the Supreme Court held that this definition was invalid because it
undermined “state sovereign choices about who may be married.” Although the Obergefell decision made
only passing reference to tax implications, the Windsor Court’s deference to “state sovereignty” no longer
exists and now all 50 states, including the fourteen states that have same-sex marriage bans on the books,
are required to issue marriage licenses between two people of the same sex, and to provide full recognition
of same-sex marriages legally performed in other states. Accordingly, employers should carefully review the
beneficiary and definition sections of their qualified plans to ensure that same are compliant with this
change in the law. In particular, plan sponsors should review the definition for “spouse” that may well be
buried in the plan materials as well as review the plan’s default beneficiary provisions. It is clear that tax
qualified retirement plans must recognize same-sex marriages for purposes of spousal rights, but it is less
clear whether they must be recognized for plan based rights that aren’t legally mandated. But I would be
wary of differential treatment without adequately assessing risk. Notwithstanding the Court’s proclamation,
we do anticipate further challenges, similar to the Hobby Lobby challenges to the ACA, based on religious
and ideological grounds.
The FMLA previously provided that married same-sex couples could only be considered married for
purposes of the FMLA if they resided in a state that recognized same- sex marriage. The rule was then
redefined to recognize the law of the “state of celebration” as the determinative factor in whether or not a
same-sex spouse qualifies for FMLA benefits. After Obergefell, all legally married same- sex couples,
regardless of where they were married, will presumably be eligible for FMLA benefits under quaalifying
circumstances.
Page 3 July Newsletter
Supreme Court Rules That States’ Same Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional (continued from page 2)
Courtesy of Lehr Middlebrooks & Vreeland, P.C.
Wearable fitness trackers---everyone is wearing them. However, what
are they? And how do they affect wellness?
Within the past year there has been a surge in technology and
popularity of wearable fitness trackers. You may have seen your
friends and colleagues sporting what looks like a rubber bracelet on
their wrist. What they are actually wearing are highly effective fitness
tracking devices. These devices not only track your fitness and sleep
patterns but also serve as a motivational tool. In addition these gadgets have become
increasingly sophisticated in the information and insights that they provide users on their journey
toward establishing healthier habits.
One of the primary fitness information features that they provide is the amount of steps you take
in a day. Why is this important? A 2010 study of 123,216 people, published in the American
Journal of Epidemiology found that the more leisure time spent sitting, the higher the risk of
premature death: Women who sat for more than six hours a day were 37 percent more likely to
die prematurely than those who sat for less than three hours, no matter how much other physical
activity they got. Wearables may uncover how much or in most cases, how little, you move
around during the day. The average U.S. adult walks about 5,900 steps daily while the Center for
Disease Control recommends about 7,000 to 8,000 steps per day.
So, how can you use wearables to stay on track? Have a plan in place:
1. Set goals. One of the top benefits of wearables is that they streamline your ability to set
goals and keep records. You don’t have to set an initial goal of 20,000 steps per day. The
Mayo Clinic recommends setting short attainable goals. It isn’t convenient to write things
down in a notebook and carry it with you. Wearables give you up-to-the-minute stats on
your daily fitness level and compare it to historical data.
2. Utilize social functions. Use wearables to connect with friends and other
users who have similar goals. Turn daily activity into a fun competition.
Many of the wearables have apps that you can download to your
smartphone to see your friend’s daily fitness levels and how you compare.
3. Stay committed. Even if you had a bad day when you never left your desk don ’t let
that get you down. Start over fresh the next day and see if you can exceed your daily step
goal!
Page 4 July Newsletter
It’s Not Just a Pedometer: Wearable Fitness Trackers By Megan Sumners Wellness Chair East Alabama Chapter
2015 TVC-SHRM BOARD
Tennessee Valley Chapter SHRM PO Box 1271
Decatur, AL 35602 www.tvcshrm.org
Page 5
Our annual legislative meeting will be August 15th at the
Jackson Center in Huntsville with NASHRM.
Hope to see everyone there!
Save the Date! Upcoming Events
July 21, 2015
Job Networking Club of Decatur
November 4, 2015
TVC-SHRM Fall Workshop at the Doubletree Hotel (formerly
Garden Plaza Inn) in Decatur
Every 1st Wednesday
Workforce Coalition meeting at The Chamber of Commerce
(Contact Mandy Price for more info)
Please contact Tiffany Weaver at
[email protected] if you have an
upcoming event that you would like to add.
President
Amy Smith, PHR Big Heart Pet Brands
Vice President of Programs
Mary Ila Ward, SPHR Horizon Point Consulting
Valerie Curtis Alliance Source Testing
Vice President of Membership
Taylor Simmons Horizon Point Consulting
Secretary
Patti Fowler Alliance HR
Treasurer
Pat Bearden National Packaging Co., Inc.
Legislative Director
Pam Werstler, SPHR National Packaging Co, Inc.
Director of Community Relations
Dr. Denny Smith, PHR Calhoun Community College
Director of SHRM Foundation
Linda Robinson [email protected]
Director of College Relations
Jeff Powers, SPHR Toray Carbon Fibers America, Inc.
Director of Certification
Forrest Keith, SPHR Daikin America
Diversity Director
Omar Smith [email protected]
Director of Wellness
Heather McDearmond [email protected]
Special Events Advisor
Newsletter
Tiffany Weaver Ascend Performance Materials
Advisor to the Board-Technology
Amanda Tidwell [email protected]
Past President
Robin Jackson Cook’s Pest Control
Get Connected (Clickable Icons)
Welcome New TVC-SHRM Members
Pamela Parker, HR, Cook’s Pest Control